skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That does sound irresponsible. I found a Seattle Times article on the matter, and it implies to me that the consumers getting the initial release are limited in number and know they are getting it. It seems likely that the data streams of their cars' utilization will be monitored and also seems likely to me personally that they signed releases allowing Tesla to collect and analyze that data. A quote from Musk in the article [0] reads, "“We’re starting very slow, and very cautiously, because the world is a complex and messy place,” he said. “We’ll see how it goes and probably release it to more people this weekend or early next week and then just gradually step it up until we have hopefully a wide release by the end of this year.”"

Words are one thing, actual implementation another, but at least he's publicly acknowledging the precipitous nature of introducing this technology to the public.

[0] https://www.seattletimes.com/business/tesla-is-putting-self-...
I think the rationale is that between UBI and his plan, his has more upside. I don’t think AK is a good analogy because, as you state, it’s a nearly annual re-supply of cash

1) not everybody will use it because they won’t want to do the civil service part

2) those who do won’t have perpetual payments. Once you use it (unlike Alaska) it’s gone. If you squander it, at least there is an upper limit to your benefit as opposed to a plan that acts as an open-ended annuity. I actually think this may help foster better decisions because for many, this is their one chance at such a windfall. Of course there will be some who squander it regardless

3) As opposed to UBI, the rest of society will get some benefit in the form of service.

To elaborate on the financial wisdom aspect, he advocated for putting the money in a trust fund payable at around 25 years old. Similar to the GI Bill, you could also have strings attached as to what it could be used for (the GI Bill, for example, can be used to open a business, go to university, go to a vocational school, but not just a check for “free” money)
I am so curious what the long term plan for GME is. Is it to hold the long term? If it’s not, what are the plans to unwind?
I've no idea if it meets the legal definition of price manipulation (we'd have to review the finra records which aren't public). And even then, it might not be the SEC etcs opinion that they want this fight.

That said, WSB have been really clear that they're cornering the market to drive up the price. The fact they've done it by coordinating 1001 little retail accounts makes no difference. Short squeezes are always pretty dodgy. This one is openly a conspiracy to move a market.

Shorters got themselves in a dumb position. It seems to me someone is rigging the market to get them out of it. But that doesn't change the core action here: let's conspire to corner the market and force an artificially high price.
Melvin could have "gotten out" by selling their position to Citadel for all we know.
Try to do that in incognito mode after a crash.

300 tabs! I guess there is nothing more to discuss.
Please keep this sort of hellpost away from HN.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Depending on how its done, "movement from platforms to protocols" can also be anarchy codified. Most people don't want that either.
Ok, then source this quote please:

> most short positions are actually held by retail investors

Shilling doesn't mean you haven't used this account before.
Every time I mention this on Hacker News, I get downvoted by the neoliberal fascists that want to suppress the speech they feel comfortable with silencing.

Free speech is only free if we allow all of it.

Americans have thick skin. It's in our culture. We've accomplished so much in spite of internal disagreement and oppression: voting rights, women's rights, gay marriage (which still isn't enshrined in the constitution -- work to be done!)

Imagine if we froze back in the 50's because we didn't have free speech. Pick any point in the timeline and freeze the American experiment. It will lead to a worse outcome.

I can tolerate some idiots with racist hate flags,
Westboro funeral protests, etc. Because the freedom we enjoy is worth so much more than their minor nuisance.

edit: Yep, predictably downvoted. Go move to another country that isn't America so you don't have to listen to people you disagree with.
They are allowing people to close positions they currently hold, but not open new positions. That is not the same as only allowing people to sell shares, and it is not the same as suspending trading of the security.
Imagine signing up for a broker and then being told you can't buy TSLA or DIS because its been doing too well - are they even a broker at all?
Obligatory: The official site for the 1996 film Space Jam is still up:

https://www.spacejam.com/
Great explanation! Thanks for the link!
> Robinhood acted responsibly

No. This is against the Free Market hypothesis. We are supposed to let the Dumb Money get into the market, fail out and learn their lesson.
TD Ameritrade is preventing me from opening positions right now.
As a user, I'd like to make sure that a trading app won't deny me the opportunity to actually make decent money.
There are different sorts of access to the markets. Some companies literally operate the market, others have direct access to trade on that market, others sell indirect access to other people.

The companies blocking buy orders are all in the indirect access business.
Well no, the US hasn't been enforcing its existing antitrust laws very rigorously, that's the point the GP is making.

E.g. see https://www.antitrustinstitute.org/work-product/antitrust-en...

Rather than proposing a new technological solution to the problem ("platforms to protocols") which may work but is unproven, we could simply restart the use of existing tools that have been proven to work. This has the advantage of being a strategy that can be explained to non-technical folks.
IEX is an exchange with the goal of executing its trades without HFT firms in the middle. https://iextrading.com/

The harder part for the average person is ensuring their brokerage routes their order flow through IEX. I am not sure how the average person would do that.
For financial crimes?

Because nothing ever happens to the rich when all you do is take a bit of their money away. They have so much that they will get it back merely for being wealthy, and as we just saw with the recent pardons, they won't even serve their entire sentence even when they're stealing the life savings of hundreds.
I think what many don't realise is that it is precisely the "unfree" parts of HN that make it attractive. And by that I don't mean centralized technical or organizational structure, but rather stuff like a culture of downvoting destructive, inflamatory or snarky comments, a good and mostly invisible moderation, a strong focus on certain topics etc.

To have a good discourse it totally helps if that one guy over there isn't screaming at everybody that has a slightly different opinion while he is shitting onto the table in front of the rest of us. It helps if everybody agrees what goes to far.

Federated, decentralized and free plattforms need to deal with this their own way. What if the free plattform you are hosting is used by a ring of child molestors and pedophiles? Do you accept that freedom for all also means freedom for them? Or do you enforce your own law on your own turf? While this is an extrem example, anybody who tried to run such a thing in a meaningful way had to ask themselves the same question. I am btw. aware that child molesters are a common scenario used by politicians to justify yet another crack down on encryption.

The question here is, what kind of plattform would you want to run? One where the discussions enrich the lives of a thousand people, show some of them perspectives they never had? Or rather the lawless zone where everything goes and the stronger person with the louder capslock and the meaner insults wins? Or something conspiratorial?
Apparently this is a really big problem in India too [1].

---

https://restofworld.org/2020/all-the-data-fit-to-sell/
The case appears to be filed here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/50143052/nelson-v-robin...

Scanning the complaint quickly... it's not a strong case. The problem plaintiffs have is that the contract they signed lets Robinhood essentially refuse to trade if it wants to. In order to defeat that, you're going to have to argue that those contract provisions violate federal law and are therefore unenforceable. That's not really want the complaint does. Instead, it seems to argue that Robinhood's error was in failing to allow trades in GME in the first place, not in the reasoning for its failings. (At least they actually allege enough of this to potentially get discovery, which is better than some other complaints I've seen recently).
I'd be curious to know if he ran afoul of the verboten PC topics (race, gender, sexuality); considering the era in which he lived and worked, it seems not-unlikely that he'd be a "product of his time".

At the same time, he clearly held many political positions which were much more controversial in his era, but that the left-libertarian-leaning HN crowd wouldn't find objectionable, whatever their status in the 2021 Overton window: staunchly anti-war, anti-corporate [0], and openly pursuing a post-scarcity utopia [1].

[0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/285349.Grunch_of_Giants

[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1321401.Utopia_or_Oblivi...
Clarity in (argumentative, essay, etc) writing is taking upmost care of your reader: you want to hold the hand of the reader and guide them towards a new understanding with little to no strain.
Thanks for the answers.

> > Does it support uBlockOrigin/uMatrix?

> It doesn't support WebExtensions (i.e. Chrome/Firefox extensions) unfortunately

JFTR, uBlockOrigin available as non-WebExtension for legacy Firefox/PaleMoon.[0]

[0] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock-for-firefox-legacy
That sounds like a good idea. Just regulate the rain barrels so that they lose a certain amount of water if you don't use it yourself.
My point of moral productive work was to differentiate it from things like financial fraud or telemarketing, which require a great deal of work, but are ultimately unproductive and/or come at the expense of society.
My other point about leisure/pleasure seeking is that you are always, no matter what, giving your life to something. If you give your life to leisure/pleasure it is a resource that is wasted that detracts both from your life, and the lives of any person you may have helped with that resource. I reject the notion that self destructive behavior doesn't hurt anyone else. I'd hate to live in a society of bums and drug addicts. We all do better when we all do better.
Right now, fully a third of all of my work efforts (read: taxes) are wasted on retired dabblers and dilettantes who do nothing to help the rest of us. Their pleasure comes at the cost of myself, and my children.
So long as you pass on your genes and your ideas, your efforts matter on Earth, and potentially our actions matter on a spiritual/supernatural level. The only respite I find in these conversations as that the hedonists will just be dust in the wind.
I'm not sure if this is new as of today - but to close (deactivate) your robinhood account, you need

1. No outstanding trades
2. a $0.00 balance
3. Contact support and (optionally?) give a reason

(1) and (2) make sense, but is (3) new?

I wonder if there is a mass exodus - there should be.
I'm curious, what was the reason for the difference? While the C language standard doesn't guarantee anything about alignment, I'm used to the behavior of compilers in practice being consistently 'align everything on its own size'; what changed between debug and release builds in that case?
> I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing

Of course it's a bad thing when government can seize property at will without clear legislations, separation of power, checks and balances.

It's a bad omen, it means that Chinese institutions are flawed.
You state two opposing viewpoints.

One: the customers want this

Two: the customers are conditioned into buying this by coercive marketing

I don't believe that Tesla customers asked for this change, so I'd tend more towards the second viewpoint.

It's much like the smartphone market: we're constantly told that the market doesn't want small or thick phones, but the market isn't given the choice.
Thanks a lot for the tip! Will give it another go :-)
Maybe make Protecting free speech part our governments highest law.

Maybe we could amend the law.
Seriously.

Lots of people love to dump on the constitution as old and not relevant. But it’s meant to restrict government and protect people’s freedom.
I also use DEGIRO, and it is a good broker, it doesn't do this scammy pay for order flow thing that Robinhood and Trade republic are doing, that said, I didn't buy GME and I would not recommend buying it.
I'll put it differently.

Looks like there is now another player in the market with the ability to screw the establishment and with an equal or stronger ability to manipulate the market.

It has been well established that most folks with "insights into stocks" have none - as evidenced by the returns on index funds when compared to the managed funds. It has been mostly about who has the deepest pockets and hence the ability to play the game, with lots of insider information sprinkled in.
Could someone please confirm this, but as I understand they blocked buys but not sells, or the other way around? Instead of freezing the stock, it drives the price in one direction.
Surely, posting unsourced FUD is too?

> most short positions are actually held by retail investors

That is an unsourced lie, told at a time to cause maximum confusion about what is happening in a situation where large financial entities are colluding to mitigate a situation wherein large amounts of capital are at risk.

These illogical comments are, via Occam's razor, literally most easily explained by astroturfing.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25941689.
If you sell it, someone gotta buy it. But buying on RH is blocked. They're just trying to crash the price.
Robinhood is what all the people jumping on the bandwagon used. And this coincided with a sharp price drop on all of these stocks blocked. The reason was "Due to ongoing volatility", but any trader will tell you volatility is how money is made. It took all of the normal people out of the game, and tried to scare them into selling so that the ones holding the shorts are in a better position.

And to add to that, a company (Citadel) that pays Robinhood a large amount of money for their data is one of those with the short positions. So Robinhood itself has a stake in this.

Disclaimer: I have no idea what I am talking about and this is only my opinion.
Ally was as well (I am not sure who fills the orders), but Fidelity was still working for me.
It's not even that it rounds to 1 star, it's actually 1.0 stars (according to the aria-label on the HTML). The difference between a 1.4 and 1.0 is huge in terms of what percent of reviews are actually favorable.
I would actually beg to disagree, as someone who was bored a few weekends ago and decided to go through a few reasonably-complex PSD files (eg, ones with different layer types, bezier curves, etc.) in a hex editor with the official specification in-hand in an attempt to understand the format. (The specification can be found here: https://www.adobe.com/devnet-apps/photoshop/fileformatashtml...).

After a few hours, I was able to grok it without too much difficulty, and found the format was reasonably well laid-out. Yes, it does suffer from some "let's take the in-memory representation and bake it into the on-disk format"-isms, and there were a few things were not covered by the specification (eg, a couple Resource IDs aren't mentioned at all, or they are, but there's no documentation on how to interpret their content) - but it's not anywhere close to insane.

To give an example, partially going off memory from what I remember seeing in real files, but mostly skimming the spec, a very basic gist of a typical PSD files might look something like this. (I can only assume HN is going to mangle the formatting of the following text, so expect to see multiple edits to this comment):

EDIT: I was right about the formatting getting messed up. I've posted it to Pastebin and will call it a day:

https://pastebin.com/raw/WZNrCSAP

So that (the Pastebin link above) is the basic and oversimplified gist of a PSD file. It's mostly just reading 4-byte tags and length fields. Now, rendering a complex PSD file (or worse: generating a complex one) is another matter, but the on-disk format is pretty understandable IMO. Creating a bitmap-to-PSD conversion program from scratch is also something I could see being doable in a weekend if you followed the spec, and, as long as the PSD only contained simple rasterized data (eg, no filters and other fanciness) and only the bare-minimum ResourceID/Layer tags.

Honestly, I really trust PSD as a general interchange format for images. It's quirky in some places, but it's pretty logically laid-out, is universally-recognized, and I can rest assured that a rasterized copy of my images will always be stapled to the end of the file if worse comes to worse. There really is no alternative, because while you can contain Photoshop data in a format like TIFF (Photoshop just staples the entire PSD file into a TIFF/EXIF tag anyway), and if an application unaware of that PSD data opens the TIFF files and saves it, the Photoshop data might go poof or have a mismatch with the other TIFF data. And then there's Gimp's XCF format, where the on-disk format is allowed to be changed willy-nilly because you are only supposed to use Gimp's official library for reading/writing to it (not to mention no application really supports XCF aside from Gimp and maybe a few open-source projects). And let's not even bother with $application-specific formats, because they are meant only for that specific application.

The moral of the story is PSD is an alright format.
>Why is Robinhood being singled out?

Likely because it has the most impacted users. I suspect other platforms will get lawsuits as well in time if this one proceeds.
But the aftermath of elite HedgeFunds shorting companies that employ us peasants sure as hell does.
>Not quite. linux is the success of the past! but already corrupted by "tainted" kernel...

> linux adopted GPL, which was unthinkable by corporate back then. But because devs didn't cave in to "permissive license fallacy", they had to eat it up.

True, I didn't expand on that to be more concise. Linux is a grandfathered treasure. Though there's an argument the corporations could use BSD like Apple, it's just more beneficial for the fragmented PC/Android ecosystem to maintain Linux sort of like an open ISO standard. Either way, this is not an easy story to replicate, unless something is essential on the level of Linux.

I think with the way the situation develops, more and more people will be questioning permissive licenses as the no-brainer standard. I'm not saying there's no place for them, if you have a good business reason or something. Buy you don't have to unconditionally donate your labor to entities with nation-state-GDP-sized coffers. Copyleft alone won't solve the problems of the industry, but an expansion of its mindshare it would be a start.
Robinhood has begun selling shares for people's “own good”.
Does anyone know why Robinhood would block the symbols? If the SEC determines some manipulation happened, does Robinhood bear some liability?

I'm not alleging a conspiracy or anything, it just seems odd to me that this kind of action comes preemptively from a broker. I would have expected the brokers to do nothing until the SEC indicates something one way or another, or for nothing to change if the SEC doesn't take a position either way.

I feel like there's some part of this I'm missing.
Citadel is probably having a very busy, but very good day today.
> linux adopted GPL, which was unthinkable by corporate back then. But because devs didn't cave in to "permissive license fallacy", they had to eat it up.

Linux using GPL wasn't such a big problem for the corps, as the Linux developers stated the syscall interface is the GPL boundary. So you can make user space code that runs on Linux without being affected by the GPL (see e.g. the Android "no GPL in userspace" rule). And even inside the kernel, there are loopholes to get around the GPL (e.g. the "tainted" thing you mentioned).

Even if Linux were permissively licensed, the thing preventing splitting up into a zillion proprietary forks would, I think, be the ferocious development speed and lack of internal API guarantees.

> until we stick to GPLv3 like linux stuck with GPL, opensource is point less.

I don't see what GPLv3 would solve here. To close the "service provider loophole" you need the AGPLv3, or even something stronger. But given the more or less total lack of adoption of AGPL, I'm not hopeful here.

I mean, it would be nice if copyleft would be the norm, but that goal seems to be slipping further and further away all the time. To the point that corps can start to shun copyleft code, pressurizing the remaining holdouts to switch to permissive licensed or become irrelevant.
At some point those shorts are due - if the owner of the shorts doesn't hold the necessary stocks, it's going to be expensive.

That's my understanding. What happens afterwards? No ideas. Some people want to see hedge funds burn, I would not mind that either.
I've been buying on TDA and Schwab today... I think that TDA only restricts you if you are on a margin account.

I'm on a cash account because I like to avoid their "pattern day trader" protection.
Those terrible workstation layouts (or the equivalent at my company) are the reason why I find it much easier to talk to people on my team when I'm working from home. I can start a teams call with anyone and have a 1-on-1 conversation with no distractions. When we were still going to the office, it was difficult to have a 1-on-1 conversation because you would have all the noise of people around you talking loudly, plus my own conversation is distracting those other people who are sitting 3 feet away but are not part of the conversation. So we'd have to go to a meeting room nearby, but then you don't have your computer screen available, so you can't talk about the code you're working on. The whole concept of trying to collaborate in the office was ludicrous. Adding insult to injury, the company calls these cramped office spaces "collaborative".
> Because the point isn't to have no moderation, it's for the power of "moderation" not to be vested in a small number of oligarchs pressured by angry mobs spurred on by media companies with bad incentives to want to damage their political opponents and market competitors.

This is not a statement many people who have been angry recently would agree with.

Trump would've gotten himself banned from any of the forums I hung out in from 2000 to now. Not for being conservative, for being an asshole.

The "only remove illegal content" crowd has a problem with that. I don't.
I was thinking more about being able to trade online, not GME specifically.

TBH 'protocols not platforms' has become kind of a slogan lately, but history doesn't make it look too promising. Email is a protocol, but it has largely been dominated by Google.

A really compelling product can capture a protocol.
> I get downvoted by the neoliberal fascists

You might get fewer downvotes if you followed the HN rules, particularly "be nice". Also, in polite conversation, preemptively calling your fellow conversation partners fascists is a good way to get off on the wrong foot.
Memory savings are the main potential gain, since you won't need as deep a tree. This is not the main issue with this tech atm.

Also, their distance output will be an estimate, it won't be exact, which will cause render time to underperform vs exact representations. Worse, the NN could return a value greater than actual distance, which will cause artifacts.